Logical Fallacy of Post Hoc Ergo Propter Hoc / Post Hoc Reasoning / After This; Therefore Because of This

Post hoc ergo propter hoc is one of the many smokescreens that are used to cover the fact that the reasoning is based on one of the three fallacies of Agrippa's trilemma. Whenever a logical fallacy is committed, the fallacy has its roots in Agrippa's trilemma. All human thought (without Divine revelation) is based on one of three unhappy possibilities. These three possibilities are infinite regress, circular reasoning, or axiomatic thinking. This problem is known as Agrippa's trilemma. Some have claimed that only logic and math can be known without Divine revelation; however, that is not true. There is no reason to trust either logic or math without Divine revelation. Science is also limited to the pragmatic because of the weakness on human reasoning, which is known as Agrippa's trilemma.

The Logical Fallacy of Post Hoc Ergo Propter Hoc / Post Hoc Reasoning / After This; Therefore Because of This occurs when it is assumed that just because something follows something it is caused by whatever it follows.

Examples of the Logical Fallacy of Post Hoc Ergo Propter Hoc / Post Hoc Reasoning / After This; Therefore Because of This

Atheist, Alex Ritchie: "I suggest that the name change from Creation Science Foundation [Australia] to Answers in Genesis is a shrewd and timely precaution to safeguard this religious organisation from the possibility of legal action, following the precedent of the Plimer/Roberts case."

This Atheist committed the logical fallacy of post hoc ergo propter hoc, after this; therefore, because of this. His logic goes like this: Answers in Genesis changed their name after the Plimer/Roberts case; therefore, Answers in Genesis changed their name because of the Plimer/Roberts case. In fact, Answers in Genesis changed their name in America years before the Plimer/Roberts case, and the reason that they changed it from "Creation Science Foundation" to "Answers in Genesis" is because their work is based on the infallible Word of God rather than on the fallible words of scientists. There is no problem with true science, but some scientists make stuff up and then call it "science."

In the late seventies, the IRS began legal action against Christian schools, assuming them to be guilty until proven innocent. The charge was race discrimination. The logic was that the Christians had started the schools to avoid the laws against racial discrimination that were passed.

The IRS used post hoc ergo propter hoc logic. Their logic went this way. The Christian schools were established after the schools after the laws against racial discrimination were passed; therefore, the Christian schools were established because the laws against racial discrimination were passed. However, the Christian schools were established right after prayer and the Bible were banned in schools and after violence, drugs, and sexual promiscuity became unbearable in the schools. The IRS case failed because there was no racial discrimination in the schools.

"We find similar biochemistry in all life, and evolution is the cause of this. Therefore, evolution happened."

"Evolution is the cause," is simply a story that is not true, and it is an example of the fallacy of false cause. We know, by Divine revelation, which cannot be refuted, that God created everything, and a common designer and creator would cause this same effect--and the Creator God is the cause of similar biochemistry in all life.

"The Bible’s account of the Genesis flood borrows from earlier myths. Over 270 cultures have flood myths, and they are surprisingly similar in many details, so the entire story is just a myth."

Actually, it's the other way around. The Biblical story is the one that God deliberately kept accurate, and we know that by Divine revelation. It would be expected that such a momentous event would be remembered by many cultures. To say that, because there are many witnesses, the flood never happened defies all reason.

"It is often claimed that poverty causes crime, but the cause and effect has never been proven."

Most poor people are not criminals. It could well be that crime causes or intensifies poverty for the criminal and those around the criminal.

“The awe and wonder of the Universe stirs the emotions because we are all made of stardust--when I saw Cosmos by Carl Sagan at age ten or eleven. It brought me directly into a profound sense of awe of the universe and life itself, of us all – quite literally – made of star dust.”

This claim that there are emotions that are generated when looking at the stars, therefore, these emotions come because we are "all made of stardust" is the fallacy of false cause and effect. How would the molecules remember that fantastic story if it were even true? Random molecules have no memory. There is also no proof that life came from stars. There is proof that God created, since God reveals to us that He created everything. He has made that obvious to every person. Carl Sagan made up an alternate story to compete with what God tells every person through His Creation and through the Bible. Emotion is a physical response. It much more is likely that the emotional response to the awe and wonder of the Universe is a result of the Heavens declaring the glory of God and the Earth showing forth His handiwork.

Fallacy Abuse

Sandy: "If you claim that my rejection of Christ will result in me going to Hell, that’s a logical fallacy of false cause and effect."

Roxanne: "Actually, the cause is that you are choosing to go to Hell rather than to submit yourself to Christ, so there is no fallacy."

Perhaps Sandy was presuming that Christ was not the only Way. However, God has plainly revealed that Christ is the only way. If Roxanne talked to Sandy about it, then Sandy has heard it from God. Not that Roxanne is God, but God has spoken through her. God has revealed that no one can say that Jesus is Lord but by the Holy Spirit.

An Atheist Website (supposedly teaching logic) committed fallacy abuse with the following quote (but taken out of context.)

Andrew Schlafly: "In Romania, abortion was illegal under two decades of rule by the dictator Nicolae Ceausescu, and the country enjoyed one of the lowest breast cancer rates in the entire world during that time, far lower than comparable Western countries. Romania's breast cancer rate was an astounding one-sixth the rate of the United States. But after the execution of Ceausescu on Christmas Day, 1989, Romania has taken the opposite approach, embracing abortion to the point that Romania now has one of the highest abortion rates in the world. One Romanian observer decried, "The liberalization of abortions in Romania in 1990, the significant increase of the number of abortions at relatively short intervals, determined a rise in the incidence of breast and uterine cervix cancer in my country."

There is actual research linking breast cancer to both abortions and to birth control. Schlafly brought many other examples from demographics.

Note that when Atheists try to teach logic or use logic, they are not being consistent with their worldview. There can be no valid logic or science in the Atheist worldview, so they are actually being logically inconsistent to use it. That doesn't mean that they can't use it. They can use logic and science. When they do, they are not consistent with their own worldview.

The problem of Agrippa's Trilemma, destroys all secular thinking. You may know this as Münchhausen Trilemma or Albert's Trilemma. If a naturalistic presupposition is any part of the foundation of thought, then Agrippa's Trilemma is in force. A chain of thought is as strong as its weakest link. This chain must begin with something that is absolute, but all that is available is infinite regress, circular reasoning, or axiomatic thinking.